Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 24STCV02538, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for violations of the FEHA. Plaintiff Laura Collins-Williams alleges that she is an employee of the Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD) and its Board of Education (the Board) working as an Assistant Superintendent of Student Services. Plaintiff alleges she suffered discrimination and harassment on account of her race.

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Michael Bregy.

On January 16, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the motion to compel.

On April 8, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition.

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Michael Bregy.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Michael Bregy is GRANTED. The Court awards Plaintiff’s requested sanctions in the amount of $4,400 for 12.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour. Defendant Michael Bregy must pay sanctions and submit to further deposition before May 1, 2025.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Michael Bregy. The parties filed a joint stipulation wherein Defendants agreed to produce Bregy for deposition, produce documents demanded in Plaintiff’s deposition notice, and answer questions he refused to answer in the previous deposition. Defendants represent in the opposition to this motion that they complied with the terms of the parties’ stipulation and resolved the discovery disputes Plaintiff complains of in her motion to compel. (Mohindru Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiff refused to take the motion off calendar because Bregy failed to produce documents as stated in the parties’ stipulation. (Id., ¶7.)

On reply, Plaintiff alleges that during Bregy’s deposition, Bregy failed to produce the documents requested. Defendants’ counsel represented that he submitted documents responsive to the deposition notice for Defendant BHUSD, Plaintiff alleges that the documents did not respond to the deposition notice of Bregy. (Edwards Decl., ¶10.) Bregy testified at his deposition that he was not producing documents on that date and that he had not searched for responsive documents and did not know if the employee he asked to perform the search had completed it. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff further argues that the documents responsive to the deposition notice served on BHUSD are not responsive to the deposition notice for Bregy. For example, Bregy communicated with Plaintiff during his tenure at BHUSD via text. (Edwards Decl., ¶14.) The documents produced by BHUSD would not include these documents.

Plaintiff further argues that Bregy’s objections to the deposition notice are waived because they were untimely. Regardless of whether the objections were waived, the parties’ stipulation provides that Bregy was to produce responsive documents without objection.

Plaintiff requests that Bregy be ordered to submit to deposition before May 1, 2025 because his employment with BHUSD officially ends on that date and he will return to Illinois sometime after that date. (Edwards Decl., ¶16.)

The Court finds that Bregy failed to comply with the parties’ stipulation by failing to provide responsive documents at his deposition. Even if some documents produced by BHUSD would have been responsive to the deposition notice served on Bregy, documents specific to Bregy were not produced. Thus, Bregy failed to proceed with his deposition. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Bregy to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents is GRANTED.

The Court finds that Bregy’s failure to produce responsive documents at his deposition is sanctionable discovery abuse under Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a). Given the amount of time Plaintiff spent meeting and conferring, taking Bregy’s unsuccessful deposition, and preparing this motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is reasonable. The Court awards Plaintiff’s requested sanctions in the amount of $4,400 for 12.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour.

The Court had already warned Defendants’ previous counsel that it expects all parties to remain civil during this litigation. Given that Defendants now have new counsel, the Court again reminds all parties that, in the event the prevailing party seeks an award of attorney's fees at the conclusion of this case, the Court is expressly permitted to consider the civility of counsel or lack thereof in determining a reasonable fee award. (Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 746-47; Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 908, 927.)